Dangers of the Speech

[Tabby]

Khendon, the implied caveat to "Spells always work" is that they always work *if you do them right.* I believe this is stated directly in BONWM, though I can't place a direct quote. It's like a mathematical equation, or a computer program. You get all the variables in the right place, you get the solution you were looking for. But you misplace one, and it's the infamous "garbage in, garbage out."

-Tabby
the princess with claws

i first would like to congratulate anyone who has read all the posts in this section...this is intense stuff!

okay, i would say that yes, a spell always works, but arguably, a spell is only a spell if it is *complete*-that is, all the prep work is done correctly, all the materials (if needed) are appropriate, and all the words are spoken properly and the whole thing, from beginning to end, is accurate in every sense. a "spell" with any minute aspect missing or one that is incorrect in any way won't work and therefore isn't a spell at all. however, words are words. if i said "the chicken is pink", that can be as accurate as saying "the chicken is white" because those are spoken truths given that the chicken is one of those colors or that it COULD be-it's feasible...(bear with me now) if in a wizardry a name is spelled incorrectly, the spell is not wrong, because the NATURE of the named changes, BUT the named can't become something else entirely. there are laws and limitations to everything. if something is not allowed, then it cannot be. if i said "the chicken is a cow", that is an incorrect statement because the chicken could not possibly be a cow. i'm saying that within a spell, things that could be CAN be, but things that CAN'T be WON'T, and spells that state that something that can't be IS, aren't spells at all because what they state is not true. (Whew, I know what I'm talking about and I hope that everyone else does too...) This is all speculation with the notion in mind that there are such concrete and unbreakable laws in wizardry, and I think there would be...Any ideas or speculation on my theory?

"It's a competitive world for
low budget people;
spending a dime while earning
a nickel
with no regard for who it may
tickle....
My cup is full to the brim."
-Buju Banton

[Penelope]

My assumption has always been that "a spell always works" in the sense that it always does *something*. But if you didn't do it right, the result may not be what you were aiming for. Garbage-in-garbage-out, as Dairine would say.

There may also be some restrictions as to what qualifies as a spell - it's not just saying something in the Speech, or you wouldn't see wizards going around saying "Dai stiho" so casually. (Although it'd be interesting if saying that actually had the effect of a sort of blessing...) Maybe a spell has to be closed with a wizard's knot?

[Rysade]

Parasitic Physics

Ok, now that's one strange phrase, but I think it's an intriguing idea about Wizardry. Don't look up Parasitic Physics, because I just made it up. It's this idea, say, like... umm, a set of physical laws can't exist without 'host' laws, see? The 'host' laws are all co-existent, they don't need one another, because they're ONE. Parasitic physics would need to have some other physicial laws to latch on to. Wizardry could be a set of parasitic physics. I don't know really where this idea came from, but it might help to picture wizardry as parasitic physics when thinking about how spells are performed. If normal things work normally until Wizardry is performed, then the parasitic physics asserts it's set of laws over the laws of the other 'host' physics, then we could use that to visualize just how spells might work.

Thanks to laadeedah3 for setting me off with this:

This is all speculation with the notion in mind that there are such concrete and unbreakable laws in wizardry, and I think there would be.

- Michael Schermer, Skeptic Society

Today's Song Lyric:

This is your life, good to the last drop.
It doesn't get any better than this.
This is your life!
(and it's ending one minuite at a time)

[PK]

I think Penelope has a point in that a spell may require not only Speech but a certain amount of structure -- likely including the wizard's knot. In some parts of the universe the Speech in general is pretty widely used for the sake of its... well, universality. Interestingly (and curiously), no one seems to be excessively worried that someone will redefine reality in some alarming way in the course of casual conversation.

I agree that the Lone Power's side-universe probably involved description from the dark Book -- though I'm also really darned curious as to how he was keeping the trees alive. (I'm also very amused by his conversation with "Mike," in retrospect. Though part of that might be picturing a macaw on the other end of the phone. *coughs* Most is the Lone One having the nerve to complain about his universe's entropic rating. )

It may be that conversing in the Speech exerts a certain amount of control over the speaker: it IS possible to change things using it, obviously -- but Nita notices in A Wizard Abroad that some things she says in English that are not technically lies but are meant to be understood in a way that isn't true... end up being altogether true. So it seems some of the ability to change things is a result of being a wizard -- so if you don't have the power to change a certain thing, does the Speech refuse to let you say it?

I really like the idea that "Dai stiho" actually has an effect, though.

Hm. Odd question: We know the ceremonial greeting for the Lone Power. "Eldest, Fairest and Fallen, greeting and defiance, now and forever" -- or at least the central part. (Or, as Kit adds at one point in astonishment at being ignored, "I SAID, greeting and defiance!") How would one greet the redeemed/reconfigured Lone Power, given the occasion to do so? (Maybe if you aren't planning on a fight, you can just say hi.)

Oops, posted too soon. On to Parasite Physics. *grins* That makes sense, actually -- at the most basic level, wizards themselves exist in the context of regular physical laws, and couldn't alter the defaults if they weren't already there themselves!

Ah, and one postscript -- this should qualify as a danger.... There is that line in A Wizard Alone about people joking that the asteroid belt was a planet until one of the Powers misconjugated a verb!

[jen26]

Wow! You all really thought this through!

My thoughts if anyone's interested: It doesn't say anywhere how exactly the Powers created the universe and all that's in it. At first, I thought that the Powers simply caused the Big Bang to occur.("We're barely out of the Big Bang!" said Nita. - A Wizard Abroad) However,it does say somewhere in A Wizard Abroad that the Powers created Ireland. So there seems to be a contradiction here.

A possible solution (please tell me what you think): In the bible, it says that God created the universe with words alone. Say we apply that principle to the Powers. Maybe the reason why the Speech is so powerfull is 'cuz it is the medium that brought the universe into existance! That would also explain why the Speech has the ability to alter the universe, too.

One proof: We know that Nita & Kit check their signatures before launching a spell 'cuz they themselves could be changed if their Speech signatures were.

Jen26

[PK]

Jen: Actually, in A Wizard Alone (and this isn't too much of a spoiler out of context, in case you haven't gotten a chance to read that yet), there's also a line about how the Big Bang was set off by the words "I Am One" or something very close to that, from the senior Power who is variously called Life, the One, Iau Hauhai, the Fire at the Heart, and I think also is referred to as That in Which the other Powers move. Christian churches are referred to in various places as being dedicated or intended to honor the One (if not always accomplishing this accurately). I believe it's in A Wizard Abroad that she goes further and details how the various Powers did... essentially detail work on various parts of creation, and says that in places where they got done and moved on promptly, people have stories of one Creator-God with many assistants, but where they lingered longer (Greece, for instance) there tend to be full pantheons. (Very full, given that Peach said she had been both Athena and Prometheus!)

*stops, panting*

In short, you're right, but instead of a contradiction it seems to be both.

Actually, the bit in A Wizard Abroad about an overall creation and the Powers doing detail work in various places reminded me rather heavily of the Silmarilion -- Tolkien's creation-story for Middle-Earth involves Eru (the supreme Creator) first singing the Valar and Maiar (equivalent to two levels of angels and/or gods and demigods, depending on how you look at it; let's go the easy route for this fandom and say Powers) into being and then having them join in singing the rest of the universe.

And then, once the song was done and the history told, he sent them down to the creation to make it happen that way too.

So, yes, the Speech does seem to be what brought the universe into being according to the wizards' manual. Actually, if we're looking at how the Bible might be incorporated into things (which seems fair enough, between "I Am" setting off the universe, and Nita's mother quoting a psalm, and two books quoting how the darkness comprehendeth not light, and "about two thousand years ago" being mentioned as a turning point), then in the YW universe "The Word was with God, and the Word was God" rather suggests that Jesus was in fact an incarnation of the Speech itself, or the Speech as used by the One, and possibly that the Speech IS the One.

Though that last seems rather extreme.

[Birdhead]

*throws a major tantrum* I just lost an incredibly big post. But I'll come back tomorrow!! But I have to go to bed... I just wanted to say this:
You thought "Mike" was Peach? Hmm, could well be... but I always though it was Michale the Archangel. I get a bit of a kick out of the idea of St Michael sitting at the Pearly Gates, or wherever he's supposed to sit, having a lengthy conversation with an irritated LP. It makes me think Good Omens, or possibly the Wish List. Funny books.
T

Tuibird in Aotearoa
Conservationist, Scientist, and proud of both!
Chocolate lover extraordinaire...
Ahahahaha, ahahahahaha, ahahahaha...
My mission: Bringing Maori to the world!
Spelling Freak and Typo Queen

[jen26]

Thanks, PK. We all need your posts. You're a GENIUS!

Jen26

[PK]

Whoops...! Birdhead: Yeah, I figured Michael the Archangel. I'd be fairly surprised if the Lone Power had actually rung Tom and Carl's place and gotten that particular aspect of its twin -- it was just that High Wizardry made the conversation even funnier knowing that it'd be the same entity, which leads to odd mental images. Don't mind me.

Jen: Um, thanks, but I think you exaggerate.

[Quill]

Just a thought--I would imagine that changing things with the Speech requires a bit of active will, otherwise it wouldn't be safe to use for just communication. The will involved may not be directed exactly at the possible change--ex., double-checking one's name in a spell--but I'd bet it's required to a degree. There seem to be several levels involved in the Speech's use. Communication, persuasion (Kit's talking door locks open and shut), and active spelling.

"Fairest and restored, greeting and welcome"?


-- Dex Lives No, I'm not the author. I just think you should read it.--

[PK]

"Fairest and restored, greeting and welcome"?

Oh, I like that.

And I suppose you're right that there has to be some relatively safe level.... It's clearly possible to mistranslate or do so loosely, too, judging from the Wizard's Holiday excerpt. ("No no no no, leave the floor!") A Wizard Alone mentions different tenses and so forth -- perhaps there's some sort of imperative mood required.

On the other hand, it's said repeatedly that you can't lie using the Speech (though you can clearly manage to give the wrong impression nonetheless), and there's Kit's comment in A Wizard Alone about how Nita couldn't have said what she did at one point, in the Speech, if she hadn't believed or meant it. Perhaps if you try to say something you don't mean, without the ability to change it, you can't find the words? Or something....

Hm. Or maybe there are forms of the Speech with some sort of implied conditional, and those are what get used for ordinary conversation.